Still Going on about Legitimate Rape

In an article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Phil Gingrey, a Republican member of the House, repudiated himself on two fronts: women's reproduction and magazine size limits.

Gingrey made national headlines when he tried to justify what Todd Akin said about "legitimate" rape a couple of months ago. At that time Gingrey agreed with Akin that there's some kind of magical defense against conception after rape. Now Gingrey, who's co-chair of the GOP Doctors Caucus, says:

“Whereas Todd said the panic would cause a body to shut down and prevent ovulation, more recent data suggests just the opposite is probably true,” the physician-congressman said. Adrenaline is more likely to spur ovulation, he said.

“So you learn,” Gingrey said.

Unfortunately, Gingrey didn't learn much. Even now he's still talking about "legitimate" rape:

Rape is rape. If it’s rape, it’s legitimate. I certainly regret very much weighing in on that issue, which was something that was already pretty much roundly condemned and criticized. I felt so badly about it, because my profession is treating women.  

There is no context in which the adjective "legitimate" should ever be applied to the word "rape." Legitimate means "conforming to the law or rules." Since rape is illegal and immoral it can never be legitimate.  There can be legitimate claims of rape (as opposed to consensual sex that was later falsely claimed to be rape), but rape itself can never be legitimate.

Apparently, however, in the conservative mindset, just as there is justifiable murder there is justifiable — legitimate — rape. The phrase "legitimate rape" — ever-present in their minds? — just trips off their tongues.

Gingrey feels badly not because of what he said, but because saying it could hurt his chances of winning Saxby Chambliss's Senate seat next year. This is obvious from his other self-repudiation: endorsing the idea of listening to someone discuss magazine size limits.

In the uproar after Newtown Gingrey fell victim to common sense and said that he would be "willing to listen to the possibility” of imposing limits on magazine clips that now hold as many as 100 rounds. Now he says:

"I have come to the conclusion that [limiting clip capacity] clearly would be a mistake — that it would not solve the problem,” he said.

I agree that it would not solve the problem. It would merely reduce the carnage. Instead of shooting 58 people, Aurora shooter James Holmes might have only shot 29. Instead of killing 12 people he might have killed only six.

We accept partial solutions in other areas. All the intrusions of airport security checks, limiting shampoo bottle sizes, making us take off our shoes, and so on, will not completely solve the problem of terrorist attacks. We are spending literally hundreds of billions of dollars annually and inconveniencing millions of people on a daily basis to prevent an attack that killed one-tenth the number of people killed each year by guns. If terrorists were so intent on attacking us they'd simply adopt other tactics, such as attacks on railroads, road-side bombs and, yes, mass shootings with assault weapons loaded with 100-round magazines that the terrorists bought at gun shows without background checks.

All of us are forced to surrender our personal privacy every time we board a plane to reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks that occur once every few years, yet gun owners can't be bothered to switch magazines more frequently while target shooting to help reduce the carnage of mass shootings at schools and malls that happen almost monthly?

The juxtaposition of these two issues illustrates how weird the conservative thought process is. The whole issue of "legitimate rape" came up because "pro-life" conservatives want to outlaw abortion in all contexts — even rape. Yet they want to keep weapons of mass murder in the hands of madmen who use those weapons to mow down those same innocent children who were saved from abortion.